MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] Whitney Hammel (Mother) appeals the trial courts custody modification awarding Logan Hammel (Father) primary physical custody of his and Mothers two children, 10-year-old H.H. and 7-year-old W.H. (collectively, Children). Finding sufficient evidence that the custody modification was in Childrens best interests and based on a substantial change in Childrens homelife adjustment and parent-child relationships, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Shortly after parents divorced in Ohio, Mother moved Children to Indiana where their maternal grandmother also resides. According to Father, he discovered the move when Childrens new school called concerning their repeat absences. Father, who regularly traveled for work at the time of the divorce, has since settled in Iowa and now works for a company which does not require overnight travel.
[3] Given his newfound stability, Father petitioned for modification of child custody, claiming Mothers lifestyle was chaotic and that she left Children with their maternal grandmother for long periods of time. At Fathers request, a court appointed special advocate (CASA) was assigned to investigate Childrens bests interests. The CASA recommended that Father have primary physical custody of Children, and following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court agreed. Though Mother and Father maintained joint legal custody of Children, the court entered a custody modification order awarding Father primary physical custody of Children, with Mother having parenting time. Mother now appeals.
Standard of Review
[4] “We review custody modifications for an abuse of discretion with a preference for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.” Hecht v. Hecht, 142 N.E.3d 1022, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (internal quotation omitted). “We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. at 1029. “Rather, we will reverse the trial courts custody determination only if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
Discussion and Decision
[5] Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Father primary physical custody of Children. Indiana Code § 31-17-2-21(a) prohibits a trial court from modifying a child custody order unless: “(1) the modification is in the best interests of the child; and (2) there is a substantial change in one ․ or more of the factors that the court may consider under section 8 and, if applicable, section 8.5 of this chapter.”
1
[6] Indiana Code § 31-17-2-8 identifies nine factors relevant in determining a childs best interest. They include “[t]he interaction and interrelationship of the child with ․ the childs parent or parents,” Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8(4)(A), and “[t]he childs adjustment to the childs ․ home.” Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8(5)(A). Our review of the record reveals that the trial courts custody modification was based on substantial changes in these two factors, which support a determination that awarding Father primary physical custody was in Childrens best interests.
[7] As the trial court found in its custody modification order:
11. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that the children spend every day at maternal grandmothers home. On school days, Mother drops the children off at grandmothers house before school and picks them up from grandmothers house between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., despite leaving work in Indianapolis at 3:30 pm (sic). The children also frequently spend the night at grandmothers house.
12. Father led an itinerant lifestyle at the time of the divorce where he traveled from state to state working. He ceased this lifestyle in May 2020 and settled in Waukee, Iowa, his home state. He has a job with Northern Natural Gas Company, working Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. through 3:30 p.m. He has traveled outside the state of Iowa one time for work but has not been required to be away from home overnight.
***
15. ․ Both parties have moved, and [they] now live 8 hours away from each other․
App. Vol. II, pp. 14-16.
[8] Beyond the trial courts limited findings above, which Mother does not dispute, the record contains evidence that Children are “always with their grandmother” and “never with their mom.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 29. There is also evidence that Mother once dropped Children off at maternal grandmothers home, told them she was going to a store, and did not return for several days. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 29-30, 87. In contrast, the record indicates that Fathers work schedule normally will permit him to be home when Children get off the bus from school. Tr. Vol. II, p. 133. And he generally will be home every night. Tr. Vol. II, p. 31.
[9] Still, Mother claims the trial courts findings do not support the judgment because Father failed to prove Childrens best interests are not served by spending time with maternal grandmother. This, however, is not a custody dispute between Father and maternal grandmother. If it were, there would be a “strong presumption” that Childrens best interests would be served by placement in the custody of Father—the natural parent. In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283, 287 (Ind. 2002) (“This presumption ․ embodies innumerable social, psychological, cultural, and biological considerations that significantly benefit the child and serve the childs best interests.”).
[10] The proper inquiry is whether Childrens best interests are served by modifying primary physical custody from Mother to Father. See Wilson v. Myers, 997 N.E.2d 338, 340 (Ind. 2013) (“[T]he party seeking the modification bears the burden of demonstrating that the existing arrangement is no longer in the best interests of the child ․” (emphasis added)). On this issue, we further highlight several evidentiary observations, which the trial court made in its custody modification order. H.H. told the CASA she wished to live with Father. App. Vol. II, p. 14. The CASA expressed concern that Mother was not meeting Childrens educational needs, as shown by their numerous school absences and tardies while in Mothers care. Id. at 14-15. W.H. also struggled to complete e-learning with Mother but had no such issues when visiting Father. Id. at 15. The CASA further expressed concern that Childrens medical needs were not being met, as they did not have a primary care physician and did not receive regular check-ups while in Mothers care. Id. at 14-15.
[11] Mother does not challenge the observations above. Instead, she attempts to explain them away. Specifically, Mother points to evidence that many of H.H.’s school absences were excused, that W.H.’s absences ceased to be an issue when he returned to in-person learning, that the State of Indianas e-learning standards were different when Children were in Fathers care, and that Children do not have any ongoing health concerns. Mothers explanations, however, are an invitation for this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Hecht v. Hecht, 142 N.E.3d at 1028.
[12] We find sufficient evidence that awarding Father primary physical custody was in Childrens best interests and based on substantial changes in Childrens homelife adjustment and parent-child relationships. Accordingly, we affirm the trial courts custody modification.
[13] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Section 8.5 “only applies if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been cared for by a de facto custodian.” Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8.5(a).
Weissmann, Judge.
Mathias, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.